It's again that time of the year ... or Muslim bashing!

And when they get that time in the spotlight we destroy them. Simples.
And then another pops up, and then another, and then another, and another, and another, another, another, and another. If you don't address the underlying issues then you'll end up constantly fighting a barbaric foe pointlessly (assuming the pattern continues).
 
And then another pops up, and then another, and then another, and another, and another, another, another, and another. If you don't address the underlying issues then you'll end up constantly fighting a barbaric foe pointlessly (assuming the pattern continues).
That, of course, is assuming the pattern continues. After 4-5 years of being blown up they will probably run out of steam and realise its hopeless.
 
Actually it is, the US marginalised Al-Qaeda and after a brief period of peace, ISIS popped up and started beheading westerners. Who's to say that that won't happen again? There are still a whole bunch of Islamic extremist organisations waiting for their time in the spotlight.
Which only goes to prove that if we're going to fight ISIS, we need to actually be committed and tough on them. Here in America we have a president who says ISIS isn't a serious threat while not only do they commit atrocities in the Middle East, but they attack us on the homefront by committing terrorist attacks while pledging themselves to the islamic state like with Orlando and radicalizing people already here like with San Bernandino.
you'll end up constantly fighting a barbaric foe pointlessly (assuming the pattern continues).
Not if we get ISIS to fuck off and then leave and quit fucking around down there after the fact. They attacked us and killed American citizens, we should retaliate and once that's over we get the hell out of there. I'm not a supporter in the Iraq war and all the meddling we've done down there going back to the formation of Israel out of Palestine. We should retaliate against people who attack us but after that I don't think we should continue to stay around making sand castles and getting more soldiers blown up for the sake of other countries that aren't even really our allies.
 
Last edited:
ISIS was given a chance to rise from the remains of Al Qaeda because the US packed up and left. They underestimated the true nature of the situation. Keeping a strong presence in the region and swiftly stomping anything like ISIS before it even gets off the ground would eventually wear them down.

I really do not understand what is so incomprehensible about the idea that you fight your enemies.
 
Again, you destroy your own argument before anyone else even has a chance to. The massive rape attack on New Years Eve still hasn't been included so how can we trust the validity and thoroughness of this source? I mean fuck if 1,000+ sexual assaults in one night haven't been added what else are they missing?
I destroyed my argument? What do you even think my argument is?
I don't know if they're counted towards 2015 or 2016 but I'm guessing the latter and 2016 statistics are obivously not out yet.
And at least get your facts straight, there were ~1,000 criminal complaints, 497 of those were about sexual assaults. 5 of those were rapes and 16 rape attempts.

This is some Olympic level cherry picking. Those top 5 countries also just happen to be 4 countries in Africa and 1 small island country in the middle of the Ocean. Nice of you to conveniently leave that out. Not to mention number 6 is the European country with the most lenient immigration policy and the stats for Sweden on rape are 6 years old and even show a steady increase in rape there so congratulations on destroying your own argument within the first post.

Congratiulations on conveniently ignoring:
Curiously, muslim countries like Albania (#110) or Bosnia (#103) are much lower on the list. That said, comparing crime statistics internationally is notoriously unreliable for several reasons. Rape is one of the most underreported crimes and a large majority of perpetrators will never see a jail from the inside. One reason for this is the stigma that comes with sexual assaults and victims being too ashamed to report it. Sweden, the go-to country for "rapefugee" alarmists, is actually a prime example: it's the number one country in terms of sexual equality and people trust the police. Those are two major factors that raise the willingness of reporting sexual assaults.

Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Sweden#Swedish_rape_statistics

In any case, it's your little theory, that doesn't hold water.
"More muslims = more rape" is crap and you know it.
 
all the meddling we've done down there going back to the formation of Israel out of Palestine.
Well, really all the problems started after WW1 when Europe carved up the Ottoman Empire, Israel fucked it up further though.
I really do not understand what is so incomprehensible about the idea that you fight your enemies.
Fighting your enemies is fine, the issue is whether it's effective or not. If we could somehow rehabilitate the radicalized muslims and put an end to the whole affair then that'd be, by far, the best option, but just shooting the folks that are already there won't fix anything, it means it will all continue just with new faces and names.
ISIS was given a chance to rise from the remains of Al Qaeda because the US packed up and left. They underestimated the true nature of the situation. Keeping a strong presence in the region and swiftly stomping anything like ISIS before it even gets off the ground would eventually wear them down.
Not if we get ISIS to fuck off and then leave and quit fucking around down there after the fact. They attacked us and killed American citizens, we should retaliate and once that's over we get the hell out of there. I'm not a supporter in the Iraq war and all the meddling we've done down there going back to the formation of Israel out of Palestine. We should retaliate against people who attack us but after that I don't think we should stay around making sand castles and getting more soldiers blown up.
Well then, at least this myriad of opinions shows that we're all equally conflicted about how solve the problem.
Vergil, as Crossfire said (or at least as I interpreted what Crossfire said), ISIS rose from the remains of Al-Qaeda partly due to there not being a strong military presence in the Middle East, whose to say the same won't happen when ISIS collapses/is marginalised?

Crossfire, as Vergil said (or at least as I interpreted what Vergil said), why should we stay down there? History has shown time and again that people don't like to be occupied regardless of whether that occupation is beneficial. Do you really want to get stuck down there as soldiers are needlessly eviscerated by a guerilla movement that isn't just motivated by Islamic extremism but by nationalist ideas as well?

By the way, this isn't a very good topic of discussion. I know basically nothing about nation building, which is more or less what I'm advocating for, and you guys - presumably - no nothing about dissuading extremists through military strategy; this just makes for a whole bunch of uneducated opinions on very complicated matters.
 
I destroyed my argument? What do you even think my argument is?
You attempted to use either outdated or just flat out incorrect statistics to try and prove something about the number of rapes in Germany.
Congratiulations on conveniently ignoring:

"More muslims = more rape" is crap and you know it.
In most moslem countries rape isn't a crime unless the woman is married to another man. Why would moslem countries like Saudi Arabia have a high number of reported rapes when until recently you could be whipped for driving while female? Rape isn't a highly reported statistic in moslem countries because rape isn't even a crime like it is in the Western world for most and a woman's testimony is only worth a fraction of a man's. Why do you think so many of these migrants thinks it's normal to grope women in public? They're used to women being second class citizens by law.
Vergil, as Crossfire said (or at least as I interpreted what Crossfire said), ISIS rose from the remains of Al-Qaeda partly due to there not being a strong military presence in the Middle East, whose to say the same won't happen when ISIS collapses/is marginalised?
Because this time we should actually leave instead of pussy footing around. The US can successfully occupy a defeated country and shape it like we did with Japan but they have to actually be commited to doing so. In the Middle East the United States just kinda leaves troops there and then half asses everything and personally I don't think we should mettle in their affairs anymore anyway. I don't completely like what we did with Japan either and we were even successful that time.
 
Last edited:
Fighting your enemies is fine, the issue is whether it's effective or not. If we could somehow rehabilitate the radicalized muslims and put an end to the whole affair then that'd be, by far, the best option, but just shooting the folks that are already there won't fix anything, it means it will all continue just with new faces and names.

I completely agree that a peaceful resolution would be best. I guess I'm just tired of watching the deathtoll of innocents go up and up in places like France and am at the point where I'm questioning whether something like rehabilitation is even possible for these people.

There has to be a point where the gloves come off and we make it very clear that anyone who is going to declare themselves for groups like Daesh will be destroyed. Eventually, they will run out of military age males who are willing to die over this bullshit.

Crossfire, as Vergil said (or at least as I interpreted what Vergil said), why should we stay down there? History has shown time and again that people don't like to be occupied regardless of whether that occupation is beneficial. Do you really want to get stuck down there as soldiers are needlessly eviscerated by a guerilla movement that isn't just motivated by Islamic extremism but by nationalist ideas as well?

If that is what it takes, yes. I stick by my earlier statement that we could definitely get it done. It's just a question of resolve.

By the way, this isn't a very good topic of discussion. I know basically nothing about nation building, which is more or less what I'm advocating for, and you guys - presumably - no nothing about dissuading extremists through military strategy; this just makes for a whole bunch of uneducated opinions on very complicated matters.

You're right, it's safe to assume that we are all probably pretty ignorant on the deeper workings of this issue. However, I don't think it hurts to have this discussion. By exposing yourself to contentious points of view and engaging others in genuine and honest debate, you can develop your ideas and grow as an individual. It may not be super apparent in my posts, but I've certainly became at least a little less "warhawk-ish" and I feel like I've learnt something. Even if I may not entirely agree with everyone here, I can tell that you all have the right intentions.

Kudos to everyone who has kept this civil and didn't take things personally!
 
Last edited:
I'm not a fan of writing a country's constitution for them and telling them they're not allowed to have an army while China and Korea ramp up their military activity.
They were absolutely allowed to have an army, they have one, and its quite good too. It'd just they were prohibited from using war as a means to settle international disputes, so it's basically a home defence force.
 
Because this time we should actually leave instead of pussy footing around. The US can successfully occupy a defeated country and shape it like we did with Japan but they have to actually be commited to doing so. In the Middle East the United States just kinda leaves troops there and then half asses everything and personally I don't think we should mettle in their affairs anymore anyway. I don't completely like what we did with Japan either and we were even successful that time.

I agree. If you're going to do something, take it seriously and see it through. Otherwise, don't even bother. You'll just wear yourself out and come off as foolish. Half-assing something is worse than doing nothing at all.
Indeed. Given their abhorrent activities during the Pacific War, the Americans were a bit soft in hindsight. Even though, they probably didn't want another Treaty of Versaillies style failure.

Either way, it worked out for everyone in the end. Japan is a nice place to live, an economic powerhouse with a vibrant cultural identity and a good track record for human rights. They're also not global belligerents anymore, trying to create an "East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere" (which is what the Japanese dominion in Southeast Asia and the Pacific would've been called had they succeeded and is probably one of the most terrifyingly dystopian sounding things plucked from actual history).
 
Last edited:
They were absolutely allowed to have an army, they have one, and its quite good too. It'd just they were prohibited from using war as a means to settle international disputes, so it's basically a home defence force.
Yea it's a self defense force that's not allowed to be used unless they're directly attacked (until recently when the definition got stretched a little) which caused issues like when that Japanese guy got beheaded by ISIS. Whether or not they should attack is up for debate cause the dude was kind've an idiot for intentionally going into their territory but the fact that they were possibly unable to retaliate because of laws written by another country doesn't really sit right with me.
Considering their behaviour, I'd say they got off lightly.
I dunno if I'd call massive fire bombings, being America's test site for two nuclear bombs on civilian targets and getting politically cucked by America getting off "lightly". Especially to a country with a culture that puts a lot of fear on dishonoured so much. They went from the dominant power in Asia to not having a real army because someone else told them not to.

Edit: We should probably stop talking about Imperial Japan. We're getting waaaaaaaaaaay off topic now.
 
I dunno if I'd call massive fire bombings, being America's test site for two nuclear bombs on civilian targets and getting politically cucked by America getting off "lightly". Especially to a country with a culture that puts a lot of fear on dishonoured so much.

They treated POWS horrifically and had concentration camps. They buried people alive. Trust me, they got off lightly.
They went from the dominant power in Asia to not having a real army because someone else told them not to
Why not to get in wars you might not win 101.
 
That and shit like Unit 731 and the "comfort women" really that entire period was just horrific and they still haven't properly bloody apologized for it! :evil:

Really odd how people will always bitch about the Nuclear bombings (not talking about you, Vergil, or anyone on here, just some asshats in general out there) and Nazi atrocities, but as soon as someone opens the files of horrific bullshit Japan did, it just seems to silent the entire room altogether, or make people change the subject...I wonder why.
 
Back
Top